Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has been one of the most stalwart defenders of widespread NSA surveillance since leaks with information about the programs started seeping out nearly five months ago. Civil libertarians and reformers have been none too pleased with her rhetoric—and they're not going to get any happier after reading the bill she introduced today.

The FISA Improvements Act has already attracted plenty of critics who view it as no improvement at all. In fact, they say, Feinstein's bill would make things much worse. It would actually enshrine the NSA "bulk data" collection programs into law and grant official Congressional approval to widespread surveillance programs that haven't ever received such affirmation before.

Her bill comes on the heels of a competing bill introduced earlier this week that reformers say would be a real step in the right direction. It would outright ban some of the programs that Feinstein is vociferously defending. Dozens of politicians have now stated they're ready to end the controversial "bulk data" programs, including the NSA's practice of keeping a log of every phone call made in the United States. In the House of Representatives, 70 members signed on to a bill proffered by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the sponsor of the original Patriot Act, which would shut the programs down. A companion bill in the Senate has a dozen co-sponsors, as well.

"I'd laugh if I weren't so offended," said Jennifer Granick, of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, in an e-mailed comment about Feinstein's bill. "It legalizes the currently illegal bulk collection of phone records and its language—whether sloppily or intentionally, I don't know—encourages the NSA to conduct bulk collection of other kinds of records under 215, as well as content, without even the bill's purported 'safeguards.'"

The "enhanced criminal penalties" for unauthorized access to data actually criminalizes anyone who accesses a computer "without authorization," noted Ruthann Robson, professor of Law at City University of New York. "While couched in protecting privacy and data, this provision would also further sanction and chill whistleblowers."

"The modest improvements [the bill] makes are far outweighed by the damage it does to civil liberties,” said Greg Nojeim, of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Capitol Hill showdown brewing on surveillance

In introducing the bill, Feinstein reiterated there's essentially nothing wrong with the current situation. "The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight, and I believe it contributes to our national security," she said. "But more can and should be done to increase transparency and build public support for privacy protections in place."

Feinstein's statements about the bill make it sound reform-ish, but when closely read, it mainly constitutes re-iterations of the status quo. For instance, the bill "prohibits the bulk collection of the content of communications under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act" (no emphasis in original). The NSA and its defenders, including Feinstein and President Barack Obama, have already stated repeatedly that they don't gather content.

The legislation would also "prohibit the collection of bulk communication records under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act except under specific procedures and restrictions set forth in the bill." In other words, it forbids the collection of data unless it's collected in a way that the intelligence committee approves of—essentially the same thing that's been happening for years.

The bill includes other safeguards and reporting requirements, most of which are already in place, such as limiting the number of contacts or "hops" that an analyst can get when querying bulk communications.

The Senate Intelligence Committee passed the bill out of committee on an 11-4 vote earlier today—a vote held in a secret, closed session.

There seems to be a showdown brewing between surveillance hawks and reformers in Congress. Both sides cross party lines in unexpected ways, and it isn't clear which side will prevail. Sensenbrenner's bill has become quickly popular, yet the Senate Intelligence Committee clearly has a strong majority in favor of these programs. Similarly, when General Keith Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper came to Congress for a hearing on Tuesday, top members of the House Intelligence Committee mostly showed support for their actions. The recent tone suggests that intelligence committees in both houses may be out of step with the sentiment elsewhere in Congress.

Does it seem atypical that a democrat senator is more Orwellian than a republican?

This is the same senator that has spent her career trying to ban the ownership of semi-automatic ("military-style" with an emphasis on style) rifles by law-abiding Americans, and has admitted that she'd ban all firearms if she could (for those of you who aren't U.S. citizens, this would be illegal without a Constitutional amendment).

So her defense of an Orwellian NSA program sounds pretty typical to me.

OF COURSE SHE'D DO THIS. She's just gotten to that age where she thinks everyone needs to be spied on, kids need to stay off her porch, and most people now-a-days are a treacherous hooligans unlike people back in her day. I don't think she can do more to fit a crazy old spy-on-the-neighbors lady archetype. She was more upset the NSA spied of foreigners (the explicit job of the NSA) than she was about them spying on americans (which the NSA has previously been explicitly forbidden to do without lots of paperwork). Someone just give her a cat and close her blinds please.

Does it seem atypical that a democrat senator is more Orwellian than a republican?

Frankenstein is a special-case. She's Democrat in name only, and otherwise very right-wing and hawkish on most topics. She's extremely pro-China and against Taiwan independence. She was behind the PATRIOT Act, and now this blank check for domestic spying. She takes a hard line on whistle-blowers, drugs, etc. She supports censorship of the Internet. She's a big supporter of DRM on music and movies. etc.

I've been shouting for many years that we should replace her with whatever Republican runs against her, because that's the only way to get a different Democrat in there. In the mean time, it won't change Democrat control of the Senate, and the GOP candidate will only be a a junior senator with little standing and no comities doing his bidding.

Does it seem atypical that a democrat senator is more Orwellian than a republican?

Seriously? You are exposing your partisanship here.

Democrat or Republican has little to do with it. What matters is how ideological the politician is. The more bound by ideology a politician is, the more he or she perceives the necessity to force their ideology on the general public, "for their own good."

"The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight, and I believe it contributes to our national security," she said. "But more can and should be done to increase transparency and build public support for privacy protections in place."

Well, we have her saying the First Amendment is a "privlidge", so I wish I could say I'm surprised she would back the NSA. California, could you plz do something about her, KTHNXBYE? She needs to be retired to write her memoirs, post haste.

Does it seem atypical that a democrat senator is more Orwellian than a republican?

Frankenstein is a special-case. She's Democrat in name only, and otherwise very right-wing and hawkish on most topics. She's extremely pro-China and against Taiwan independence. She was behind the PATRIOT Act, and now this blank check for domestic spying. She takes a hard line on whistle-blowers, drugs, etc. She supports censorship of the Internet. She's a big supporter of DRM on music and movies. etc.

I've been shouting for many years that we should replace her with whatever Republican runs against her, because that's the only way to get a different Democrat in there. In the mean time, it won't change Democrat control of the Senate, and the GOP candidate will only be a a junior senator with little standing and no comities doing his bidding.

I wouldn't say Feinstein is a DINO. I would say she just favors heavy government control.

For every Republican cause she has supported she supported a number of Democrat causes as well. She's a champion behind gun control. She's heavily in support of environmental laws. She's strong on the LGBT front.

In terms of DRM. Democrats have been in bed with Hollywood and the music industry for as long as I can remember.

It would be dishonest to try and claim she isn't a real Democrat just because she makes Democrats look bad on one issue.

Indeed a bill is needed to calm down the hysteria created by the media. More transparency and oversight would be a good thing anyways if well implemented.

By the way, Snowden already got a job for a big and important Russian 'website'. He is doing well , having a good life , protected by Russia and is treated like a celebrity by US adversaries . Cheers!

This bill is terrible because it legalizes the NSA's completely illegal spying on everyone everywhere while Feinstein pretends that it is doing exactly the opposite, which should itself be enough to get her voted out of office. And what does it matter that Snowden has a job? By the way, his supporters are civil liberties advocates. If they are categorically the enemies of the US, what does that make the US?

Does it seem atypical that a democrat senator is more Orwellian than a republican?

Frankenstein is a special-case. She's Democrat in name only, and otherwise very right-wing and hawkish on most topics. She's extremely pro-China and against Taiwan independence. She was behind the PATRIOT Act, and now this blank check for domestic spying. She takes a hard line on whistle-blowers, drugs, etc. She supports censorship of the Internet. She's a big supporter of DRM on music and movies. etc.

I've been shouting for many years that we should replace her with whatever Republican runs against her, because that's the only way to get a different Democrat in there. In the mean time, it won't change Democrat control of the Senate, and the GOP candidate will only be a a junior senator with little standing and no comities doing his bidding.

She seems pretty typically Democrat to me. You forgot about her hysterical desire to ban rifles, that have "technology" that is not at least 77 years old. Also her bill, where she is trying to to create a narrow definition of what "journalist" means. Republicans don't have a monopoly on being Hawks.

She's looking at the bill of rights like a hit list.

http://youtu.be/bywtn9RIDRw================I'd like to point out that during the time the NSA was spying on our allies, our allies never attacked us. The program works. - Tom Siedell

Just want to chime in on the Republican/Democrat issue and say that Hillary Clinton would be as bad or worse than Obama on this issue.

Indeed only civil libertarians (with a smattering of dems and repubs) have the right idea.

You mean the Ron Paul crowd, the Objectivists who think the free market rules, all government should be abolished, no entitlements for anyone of dark skin, public regulation should go out the window and the strongest should survive? Didn't we just play a round of that with the Shutdown?

Indeed a bill is needed to calm down the hysteria created by the media. More transparency and oversight would be a good thing anyways if well implemented.

By the way, Snowden already got a job for a big and important Russian 'website'. He is doing well , having a good life , protected by Russia and is treated like a celebrity by US adversaries . Cheers!

This bill is terrible because it legalizes the NSA's completely illegal spying on everyone everywhere while Feinstein pretends that it is doing exactly the opposite, which should itself be enough to get her voted out of office. And what does it matter that Snowden has a job? By the way, his supporters are civil liberties advocates. If they are categorically the enemies of the US, what does that make the US?

Oh, i mentioned Snowden because a lot of people says that he supposedly "gave everything and sacrificed his life ", when in fact he said that he should not suffer the consequences of his own actions. So, that obviously is not his intention .

And when i said adversaries i was talking about counties like Russia, China, etc. I did not say enemies since that was not my intention .

In the US there are no really anti-US groups, only antigovernment groups, you know, like libertarians who do not like governments in general .

Finally, the NSA is supposed to spy on people , that's the job of any intelligence agency. If you say that this bill enables illegal activities , i am not going to contradict you, but i feel skeptical about that claim.